Procedure and House Affairs Committee on Feb. 10th, 2022

[David Phillip Jones]

No, I recommend it be strengthened and that there be a prohibition against discussing it in the interim before the commissioner is able to deal with it. Several commissioners across the country have expressed dismay at the complainant going to the press immediately—often before the commissioners themselves have received the complaint.

As for the politicization by members being complained against, the example I'm particularly thinking of was the number of press conferences by their counsels, including their responses to the complaint at a time when I couldn't say anything about it, because it was still under investigation. That did not help the process.

I think strengthening the prohibition would be, in fact, helpful.

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC]

Thank you very much.

Ms. Mignolet, do you have a comment on this subject?

[Ariane Mignolet]

Thank you.

For our part, there is nothing in the Code of Ethics and Conduct of the Members of the National Assembly that prevents an elected official from speaking about an investigation request that they have submitted to the commissioner. Unlike the federal government, our code does not provide for a 15‑day deadline for examining a request. I have recommended that this be the case. That said, I do think it is a good provision to add; it causes people to wait until the commissioner has had a chance to rule on an application and determine whether an investigation is required before people can talk about it.

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC]

Thank you.

I cede the rest of my time to MP Turnbull.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Thank you Mrs. Romanado, and Madam Chair.

Mr. Jones, you spoke about the separation between the complaint function and looking at whether a complaint was actually merited or justified. The function is to investigate and make decisions or sort of adjudicate the complaint.

Could you speak to the merits of that separation? Consistent with Mrs. Romanado's comments and my earlier comments to our previous panel, that would be very helpful for us.

[David Phillip Jones]

Through you, Madam Chair, I think there actually are three distinct areas. One is the advisory function of the commissioner. I give advice on a quite regular basis to members who are concerned and want to be on the right side of things and who consult me before they do something. An ounce of prevention is worth a ton of cure. So that is one function.

A separate function is receiving and investigating complaints. Most commissioners across the country and I in Yukon have the ability, if we receive a complaint, to then investigate it, and that may cause some difficulties vis-à-vis the advisory function, which is private and confidential unless the member discloses it or says that they've consulted one of us. Quebec has a different system whereby it provides a separate adviser, and then there's the inquiry function, which I have in Yukon but I don't have in NWT, of separating the inquiry after I find that the gate is opened and there is something there, a preliminary matter. The difficulty with that, Yukon has found, is that it's quite expensive and it takes time. It provides a further independent look at it, but NWT's recent experience was that the inquiry—not me but the inquiry—cost over $800,000.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Jones. I appreciate that.

Mr. Wake, I'm going to go to you now. In terms of publishing guidelines, you spoken about mandatory training and how it wasn't required in Ontario but that you traditionally meet with new members and they are required to meet with you on annual disclosures. I'm just wondering whether you have the ability—and perhaps this could be a question that all could quickly answer with one word—or the power to publish guidelines for your members within the legislatures.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Mr. Wake, go ahead.

[J. David Wake]

Through you, Madam Chair, yes, I do. That's not specified in the act, and I therefore take it that I'm not prohibited from publishing guidelines. I have published guidelines on all of the topics, including gifts and letters of support, and they're on our website. Members and their staff have frequently commented to me on how helpful they are.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

You have the floor, Ms. Mignolet.

[Ariane Mignolet]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I do have the authority to issue and publish guidelines on topics that I consider relevant, because there are a lot of questions on that in particular.

In my case, it is expressly provided for in the Code of Ethics and Conduct of the Members of the National Assembly.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you, Ms. Mignolet.

Mr. Jones.

[David Phillip Jones]

Madam Chair, in neither the Yukon legislation nor the NWT legislation is there a specific reference to guidelines, but there's not a specific prohibition, so I'd be in the same situation as Mr. Wake. I would also point out that Ontario, Alberta and B.C. have very extensive guidelines, which I would refer the members to because they're very helpful.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you.

It is now Mr. Therrien's turn.

You have the floor for six minutes, Mr. Therrien.

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

First of all, I would like to say hello to Mr. Wake and Mr. Jones and, in particular, to Ms. Mignolet, whom I used to work with at the Quebec National Assembly in another life.

My warmest greetings, Ms. Mignolet; my first question will be addressed to you.

With regard to your presentation, there is one specific thing that I would have liked to hear more about. I'll take the liberty of reading a bit of what you said:

Moreover, the situation cannot be hypothetical; it must be based on concrete facts. These criteria undoubtedly contribute to preserving this tool from attempts at instrumentalization.

I would like you to tell me more about the “attempts at instrumentalization”.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

You have the floor, Ms. Mignolet.

[Ariane Mignolet]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I think the preventative code process that has been put in place means that you cannot ask for advice on a situation that does not directly concern you or is purely hypothetical. Advice is confidential, obviously.

The objective is to give advice on a real situation. We are there to prevent conflicts of interest, to assist in reflection, and to help people adopt correct conduct in the circumstances.

The last thing we want, and this has been clearly thought out from the outset, is for people to be able to call the commissioner to try to find out how an opponent might behave, or because they have heard that a given person has some issue, which could lead to wanting to publish the case or cases in the media.

It's really to avoid that, and I think it's quite appropriate.

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

All right. Thank you, Ms. Mignolet.

I would like to ask Mr. Jones a question.

I was surprised to hear you say that you work for the Northwest Territories and for the Yukon, but that you live in Edmonton to avoid placing your personal life in a conflict of interest situation. I don't know where Mr. Wake lives, and I imagine that Ms. Mignolet lives near the National Assembly. You say that not living where you enforce conflict of interest decisions avoids conflicts of interest.

I would like you to explain that to me, because it surprised me.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Comments must be addressed to the chair.

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Yes. I apologize, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Mr. Jones.

[David Phillip Jones]

Madam Chair, you have to remember that the population of Yukon is about 30,000 people, the majority of whom live in Whitehorse. If I lived in Whitehorse, my daily life would undoubtedly take me into contact with people who are members of the legislative assembly or who have complaints.

Similarly, the NWT population is about the same or slightly more. It is a similar situation with Yellowknife.

The commissioners of Yukon have never lived in the territory while they were commissioners. The commissioners of NWT have almost always lived elsewhere.

It prevents me from being conflicted out, or to be perceived to be, just because of my daily life, where I go to this church or I do that, or whatever else.

Ontario is a big jurisdiction. Canada is a big jurisdiction. Ottawa is a big city, and so on.

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Jones answered my question, which had no ill intent, very well. I was just curious. I am very satisfied with his answer and I now understand very well why his situation is as it is. I would like to thank him.

Thank you, Mr. Jones.

I have one last question and I would like to get a quick opinion from each of the witnesses. It concerns the definition of family. The Ethics Commissioner has decided to broaden that definition. Initially, this definition was restrictive in his opinion, and he decided to broaden it considerably. I would like to know your definition of a family, as well as your opinion on the broadening of the definition.

Please reply to me in turn.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Ms. Mignolet, you have the floor.

[Ariane Mignolet]

Thank you.

In Quebec, the immediate family of an elected official is also defined quite restrictively. It is limited to the spouse, dependent children and dependent children of the spouse.

From our side, this does not seem to be a problem when it comes to the code, since the article provides that one cannot favour one's family members. The article refers to members of one's immediate family and to one's non-dependent children. In this context, the definition is already broad.

For the remainder, although other extended family members fall into the category of other persons, if an elected official has improperly favoured the interests of another person, the proximity test comes into play.